Getting along in a pluralist paradigm

One dictionary defines pluralism as when “two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist.” That’s the historic (tamer) definition, where “coexist” simply means tolerating one another’s differences.

Today, pluralism includes a new kind of coexist (you’ve seen the bumper sticker) – a redefined and very conditional “tolerance.” Willingness to coexist is dependent on giving equal validity to all views – on religion, sexuality, gender, etc. – as long as you don’t claim that your view is right and others are wrong. In other words, tolerance for everyone that agrees with you.

In this new morality, transgression is a moving target. It seems those promoting these new definitions have an uncanny ability to shift and skew their ethics and morals to a given situation. On immigration, for instance, what was said by their ideological allies just a few years ago agrees perfectly with what their ideological rivals are saying now. Then, it was good. Now, it’s a Hitler-esque abomination.

It has broadened further recently – it’s now guilt by association. It’s righteous, according to some, to harass those with whom you disagree. What type of compartmentalization must take place in the mind of someone whose one moral outcry is “tolerance,” but who will shout someone down or throw them out of a restaurant for ideological differences?
Apparently, the answer to Rodney King’s plea, “can we all get along?” is, “no.”

Since the fall, the answer has always been the same to one degree or another. Sure, the points of contention change and conditions wax and wane and it sometimes seems all is well. Civility is clearly waning in our moment.

The biblical Christian is commanded to “live peaceably” inasmuch as it’s up to us (Romans 12:18) and our outspokenness about the gospel is qualified. It may be that our message offends (1 Corinthians 1:23) – as it certainly does in this climate – but our manner ought not (1 Peter 3:15). It’s when we’re overly sensitive to the culture’s demands that we allow our fear of offense to bend and mold our message.

This has been the case often in history. The so-called “Enlightenment” and “romanticism” of the 17th and 18th centuries combined with Darwin in the 19th decimated the dusty-dry, tradition-only church. It was a winnowing for those not biblically grounded in the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

That changing culture had nominal Christians scrambling for the justification of their religion. Instead of proclaimers, preachers became members of a helping profession. Social justice ruled over biblical doctrine, and while every era has had error, this was the beginning of a compromised Christianity.

Fast forward to today where we have “interfaith” celebrations or prayer, as was described in last Saturday’s Democrat as “Spiritual solidarity.”

Biblical Christians did not participate.

We do believe that those who did participate have every right to do so; and that the faiths they represent have the right to believe and practice religion in whatever (legal) manner they choose; and we do appreciate civility among and between different faiths – even in dialogue and debate.

Further, we will stand in co-belligerent opposition to society’s moral slide with other faiths.

Finally, our not participating wasn’t because we believe we’re superior human beings – individually or collectively – than those of other faiths. (In fact, knowing our own inferiority – inability, unworthiness, neediness – is the key to understanding God’s grace.)

Two reasons might find a Christian at one of these gatherings. Both are problematic. One, they actually do believe their faith is superior, but “tolerance” rules. Two, they believe one religion is as good as another. What, then, is the point?

Steve Post is a Tallahassee resident, armchair theologian, and past local ministry lay leader. Contact him at sepost7678@gmail.com.